People v. Walker CA2/6

Filed 12/15/14 P. v. Walker CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B248460 (Super. Ct. No. BA399844) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

CONTRELL WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Contrell Walker was convicted by jury of home invasion robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 - count 1)1 and of making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a) - count 2). As to count 1, the jury found true the special allegations that appellant committed the offense in concert (§ 213, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Appellant admitted previous convictions and prior prison terms and was sentenced to state prison for a term of seven years and eight months. Appellant claims he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for self-representation. We affirm the judgment.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTS Rasan Durham checked into a motel in Hollywood. He asked the person working at the front desk to put him in touch with a prostitute and was given appellant's cell phone number. Durham called the number and spoke with a woman. He and the woman agreed upon a price and a time when two prostitutes would meet him at his hotel. Durham received a call later that evening that the prostitutes were downstairs and that he had to meet them outside. Appellant met two men outside the hotel who told him they wanted to check out the room to make sure the prostitutes would be safe. Appellant took them to his room where he was repeatedly threatened with death, robbed at gunpoint and beaten. Appellant reported the robbery to the police. Durham testified that the hotel video showed him entering the building with appellant and two other men. After the robbery, Durham again called the number he had been given. He told the person who answered that he was the man they robbed, that he recognized appellant's voice and that appellant and the others were going to jail. Appellant replied, "I should have killed you at the hotel." When someone asked appellant who was on the phone, appellant replied, "It's that motherfucker we robbed." Durham reported this call to the police and gave them appellant's cell phone number. Police determined the cell phone number belonged to appellant and were able to identify the area where calls and text messages to and from that number originated. Police surveillance of that area led them to a car like the one Durham said appellant and the other two men used on the day of the attack. DISCUSSION Marsden Motion During jury selection, appellant petitioned the court to relieve his appointed counsel and to appoint a different attorney to represent him. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) We review the court's denial of a Marsden motion